Friday, February 27, 2015

The List of Lost Liberties -- Levin

Mark Levin, concluding his opening segment, declared,
When people say we're losing our country, they're wrong. 

We've lost our country.   
Everything that follows below is my short synopsis of the points he raised (evidence he provided not included) before arriving at that conclusion.
All of this can be found by listening to the opening 15 minutes of the podcast. (BTW, also try to find time to listen to Sue in the last 15 minutes of the podcast. What she has to report about Obama's plan to further Balkanize us is worth the time.)

 2/26/15-Mark Levin Audio Rewind (1:53:22)

We lost more liberty today.

  1. Internet. 
  2. Healthcare.
  3. Banks.
  4. Student loans.
  5. Seized Congress' control of spending.
  6. Seized Congress' legislative power.
  7. Seized Congress' power over immigration and naturalization.
  8. Seized confirmation process (failed for now).
  9. Accepts limits in treaties as if law without Senate confirmation.
  10. Attacked most of the Bill of Rights:
  1. Speech and of the press.
  2. Religious liberty.
  3. 2nd A. (bullet bans).
  4. Due process rights.
  5. Takings clause.
  6. States' rights.
  1. on the Declaration of Independence.
  2. on the Free Market
  3. Private property rights
  4. Industrial heartland
"The Democratic Party has become a flat-out party of tyranny. Centralized power, authoritarianism and worse. Seeks power for power's sake. Seeks to control your life."

"A growing police state in the name of seeking security all as he hollows out the military from within."

"The Republican Party is a throwback party. Not the party of Lincoln that stood up to slavery. Not the party of Reagan who stood up to the Soviet Union. An old, fat, directionless Republican party that exists to serve its leaders, its bureaucrats and its operatives, not the American people."

"The Democrat Party is a radical, statist party. (Seeks at every turn to destroy individual liberty, state sovereignty, private property rights and the rule of law.) A party led by fanatics who seek power to rule over you. To rule over everything you do, large and small. Whatever it is, they want to control it because they want to control you. A despotic party with a despotic leader in the White House."

Thursday, February 26, 2015

Demonstrating How the Left Is NOT Liberal

When will the liberals you know finally understand how the Left is not Liberal? And, further has really only ployed that label in the past in order to make its gains?

I think In Left's Always Mutating Mutant Hierarchy, Muslims Are The New Gay by Ace of Spades  will help you get through to those liberals who know you and maybe even love you.


Jamie Kirchick writes on a bunch of topics related to identity politics in this long piece; worth reading. He examines the Rock-Paper-Scissors hierarchy of victims; Muslims are now at the top of the Victim Period, and at the very bottom, of course, are Jews, who really aren't even considered by the left to be victims at all, even when they're murdered. Even as they lay dying on the street, they're Oppressors.

[Ace quoting Kirchick]:
Consider the administration's initial response to the murder of three Muslim-Americans in North Carolina last week, the motive for which, at the time, was unclear. The day after the incident, with the FBI inquiry into the matter having just been launched, the president himself released a statement declaring that "No one in the United States of America should ever be targeted because of who they are, what they look like, or how they worship." It stands in contrast to White House spokesman Josh Earnest's deplorable remark that the victims of the Paris attack "were killed not because of who they were but because of where they randomly happened to be."
The latest FBI crime statistics report six times as many hate crime incidents directed against Jews as they do against Muslims. Likewise in Europe, Jews are more likely to be victimized by hate crime than Muslims, who are themselves usually the perpetrators of anti-Semitic attacks.

It's a good piece, deriding the left's vicious Jacobins....

All of these fanatical movements purge their least-monstrous members. In the French Revolution, the Liberals went to the guillotines first; then the Constitutionalists; then the Girondists. Each group went along with the guillotining of the next group, thinking -- or just hoping -- that if they agreed to guillotine the next batch, they themselves would be spared the National Razor.

But they weren't. Including, in the end, the Jacobins themselves, who were all fed into the guillotines.

I have copied the whole piece (with a different title for the email) and sent it off with a simple introduction asking the questions I asked at the top.

Wednesday, February 25, 2015

The Less Nasty Reason for Amnesty

The more nasty reason is that it allows jihadis to sneak across the border and join the imported army hiding out in the mosques with their cached weopons.

If the Western press, the Soviet-style Media, succeeds in keeping that traitorous thought from becoming commonly understood for the deadly threat that it is, then the following may be allowed to become the meme that replaces it.

The less nasty reason is, quite simply, that both parties have aligned to allow 0 to fast-track the importation of a new American citizenry more to their liking.

The Mexican and Central American peasants, being accustomed to a very limited set of opportunities by their despotic upper classes, view coming to America as a chance of a lifetime. And it is and will continue to be for some unknown short-term.

This is especially so because they are given that all sorts of socialist goodies from the moment they cross the border, making the traditional American lure of an opportunity to make a good life from ones own abilities run as a distant second lure.

In a post from 2011, Ameristocracy Targeting TJICs, I coined the phrase Ameristocracy. Please read it.

The incoming third-worlders, long accustomed to being abused by their despots, are more accepting of their new, more benign, Norte American despots. They, as a lower class from rigidly classed societies, cannot understand why native Norte Americanos could be concerned.

Native Americans are simply not malleable enough to be relied upon to go along with the ever more demanding desires of our Ameristocracy and its ruling class. So a population that IS more accustomed to being bossed around is highly desirable and so welcomed open arms.

It serves to dilute voter resistance to the extent that voting still has any meaning.

And what bothers me most about this is that although it is bad that America is on the fast track to becoming a more rigidly classed society that it never really has been (upward mobility has long been an American dream come true time and again), it IS the less nasty reason for why amnesty is bad.

You do recall what the more nasty reason is don't you? Jihadis hiding amongst the invaders.

It would be a good thing were these peasants would come to understand how short-lived their improved life will be once the more nasty reason became "kinetic."

However, how in the world could we ever convey to them that they are welcomed here because they serve as useful idiots in providing cover for terrorists? Given how impossible it has been to convey to our fellow native Americans (with no language barrier) how deadly is our Ameristocracy to the existence of America as the home for individual freedom.


Sunday, February 15, 2015

Loser Maher Publicized by

The "Right" side of the SSM,, has chosen to pedal, not one, not two, but three links to videos of Bill Maher's nonsense. Maher could never garner such a large audience as Breitbart potentially could give him.

Bottom line
SSM will do whatever it takes to keep you irritated, even if it has to resort to the words of a worm 3 times each hour.

Saturday, February 07, 2015


So you love to eat.

But -- you know -- you're getting a bit older and thicker.

Clever marketing.

Friday, February 06, 2015

This Post Cost Me At Least $65K

Yes. To many folks I am still out of my mind. It is now well more than 2 years since I turned 66. I haven't bothered to find out how much more my monthly draw would be because I've not filed a claim for social security. Simply based on the base amount available at 66, the total is now in excess of $65,000.

A couple of too clever fellows have winked at me "not taking it now means you'll get more when you do take it." The fact is I'd have to live to be more than 100 to make up that difference. That's not a good bet even without real inflation considerations. Some people just can't accept that though I'm obviously intelligent that I'd actually do such a thing. Or even worse from their standpoint: that there might be many more people like me. Afterall, such people serve to make our trough-swilling pols and their beneficiaries look even worse than they currently are.

I'm sure they much rather think that I'm either dishonest or nuts. Sorry fellows. It's not about what you think or feel at all.

I continue to thank the Lord that I have not needed to file. That's good enough for me.

Monday, February 02, 2015

At Least Six More Years of CAGW Fraud

Because you know who is afraid of his shadow and creeps back to hide-away.

View My Stats